The tech giant only recently bumped up employee wages and started offering hardware discounts

Apple is reportedly laying off retail employees around the world -- including some that were only hired about a month ago.

MacRumors said that many Apple retail employees -- mainly part-time workers in the United Kingdom -- are being laid off after only being recently hired. There have been cuts in the United States and Canada as well.

According to MacRumors, a few different reports pointed out that part-time employees in the UK have been laid off after only working for Apple retail stores anywhere from one month to six months. Some have only just completed their training programs.

In the United States and Canada, employees have had their hours cut back significantly (some to zero). One report indicated that an Apple retail store cut "several hundred hours," leaving only full-time employees on the schedule while the part-time employees were left on stand-by.

So what's going on? There are a couple of different rumors as to why this is occurring. One is that Apple is preparing for the launch of its next-generation iPhone next month as well as the holiday season immediately after. Usually, around product launches and the holidays, hours in Apple retail stores tend to fluctuate a bit. The part-timers may be able to pick up a few more hours around these busier times.

Another rumor is that John Browett, senior vice president of Apple Retail, is behind the whole thing. Those commenting in Apple forums have mentioned Browett's past in regards to his days as CEO at Dixons Retail, where he supposedly flunked as a competent leader. Some commenters called Dixons the worst retailer in the entire UK under Browett's leadership.

"This is the work of John Browett," said one commenter named Sheza. "Classic. He screwed over Dixons, PC World and Curry's, and he will slowly ruin the Apple Retail Store experience too. I guarantee it."

It's unclear what the reason is behind the lay offs, but the recent move contradicts earlier actions set to improve retail employees' working environment. Back in June, Apple boosted employee morale by announcing that it would increase retail store wages by as much as 25 percent in July. It also offered retail employees hardware discounts, where workers can receive price cuts off of certain Apple gadgets like the iPad and certain MacBooks.

The internal review, which led to the increased wages, was led by Browett himself. He found that wage levels were the chief complaint of most Apple employees.

It's quite ironic that a place like DT, filled to the brim with Tea Partiers and Republicans, hates the pinnacle of success of capitalism in the technology sector. You love having a free and customizable OS like Android but when it comes to healthcare, "sorry we can't have free healthcare for the poor, it's better that they die."

And herein lies the difference between a Repub/Conservative and a Liberal.

If I hate Apple, I just don't buy from them. I don't hate them because they are successful or make profits, I don't try and pass laws that make it hard for them. That doesn't factor into it at all. I fully support their rights to have a business and profit from it, Liberals don't.

If you hate Apple, you need to destroy them. Because they make obscene profits, "dodge" taxes, and use Chinese labor. Oh the humanity!!!

quote: You love having a free and customizable OS like Android but when it comes to healthcare

Android isn't exactly "free". It's free to the manufacturers. If I, as an end user, want to actually USE Android, I need to buy a phone. Sure there are Android ROM's that I can download for free, but again, pretty useless without a phone.

quote: If I hate Apple, I just don't buy from them. I don't hate them because they are successful or make profits, I don't try and pass laws that make it hard for them. That doesn't factor into it at all. I fully support their rights to have a business and profit from it, Liberals don't.

As long as there is enough welfare for everyone to have the opportunity to excel, there is no problem with corporations getting as big as they can. Now when you're the 6th child of an inner city black family, you don't get the same opportunities as Mitt did when he was a kid. Your ilk would just rather have them die of starvation/illness.

In a modern society, everyone has a safety net so that they don't have to worry about having a home, food, paying for education, or an illness and so that they can concentrate on being the best they can be. No they don't deserve fancy cars and big screen TV's that they get in our present system, only the basics.

Well some of us aren't heartless bastards like you are. In fact most of us aren't, given that you guys have no chance in the upcoming election when the traditionally conservative old white folk in Florida hears about how your VP basically wants to end their healthcare and let them die.

Obamacare robs Medicare of 700+ billion to pay for itself, Clinton robed Social Security for billions with IOU's for his "balanced" budget, yet it's the Republicans who supposedly want to destroy those programs.

I think most American's understand that the Vice freaking President doesn't pass, or even propose, budgets. But somehow we're to believe Ryan is going to do these things.

Not sure how I'm a "heartless" bastard simply because I support Capitalism. But that's a typical Liberal for you. It doesn't have to make sense, or even be accurate, it just has to make you feel good or someone else feel bad.

quote: Not sure how I'm a "heartless" bastard simply because I support Capitalism

Because you would prefer millionaires and billionaires (job creators LOL) to pay less taxes over treating poor old, sick people who can't afford it. That's the mark of a despicable "human" being right there.

Endgame of pure capitalism is no different than the Feudal Despotism of the middle Ages. You'll have villas next to favelas with nothing in between. Socialist policies aim to make those favelas, where 99% of the people will end up living, to be as pleasant as possible.

lol I remember you. You're the little bigot who last time claimed because I was Conservative, I must be "religious" therefore you hated me.

Now I'm a "despicable" human being and you have to make up more crap to hate me.

Yeah you're a very compassionate person, clearly. HAHA!

quote: Socialist policies aim to make those favelas, where 99% of the people will end up living, to be as pleasant as possible.

Yes except it doesn't work. Wealth Redistribution has never given people "pleasant" lives compared to Capitalism. You pretend to understand history while you clearly don't.

You see Capitalism as something that only benefits the rich. This is your flaw. And this is where we part ways. I had no intention to enter a political debate until you trolled, poorly I might add, Conservatives with a lame attack that a 5 year old could defeat. I've soundly destroyed you, and there's nothing left for you to say.

quote: I've soundly destroyed you, and there's nothing left for you to say.

Really, where did you give any examples or even form a sentence that came anywhere near that? Let's look at quality of life rankings by country, where do you suppose social liberal European countries come in?

Cord the United States is spending nearly a trillion dollars annually on entitlements, food stamps, and other low-income programs and health care assistance. If your argument was sound, we would be at the top of that list by far. Poverty wouldn't exist on any level. We're spending more on social programs than the GDP of most European nations!!

Your presumption that I'm against Socialism because I want "people to die" is not only idiotic and insulting, but completely off base. I want people to have the best lives possible, and I know the Government cannot provide that for us!

quote: Just answer this basic question: Which do you prefer, millionaires paying more taxes or the poor/sick and the elderly being left to die?

Is this a fucking joke? Hmm let me think, do I want people to die or millionaires paying more taxes....that's a tough one! Wtf?

Seriously if you asked me this in person, and debated with me in this idiotic tone, you would be punched in the face. This is why people cannot stand debating things with you Liberal morons. The argument is NOT about taxes versus people dying! That's such a stupid Liberal straw man argument that nobody with two brain cells to rub together could possibly believe it.

quote: I want people to have the best lives possible, and I know the Government cannot provide that for us!

So, who will provide the social safety nets if not the government in your brilliant plan? The rich will just give up enough of their money because they'll feel bad for those poor sick people? History has shown this to be not the case, see the French Revolution of 1789.

Easiest fix would be to enforce a mandatory IQ of 100 for any public position in any government and outlaw lobbying, not getting rid of the government!

quote: I want people to have the best lives possible, and I know the Government cannot provide that for us!

Actually a government can, look at Norway or Australia, Netherlands, New-Zealand etc' even with universal healthcare and such. They rank incredibly highly in most standards of living (Much higher than the USA.)The people even retain greater levels of freedom than the Americans in allot of aspects too.

Most of that can be attributed to good reforms and a government that is not large and bloated that is also not paid by large companies to pass legistlation that don't benefit the people.

Take a look at the financial crisis for instance, the USA spent trillions bailing out companies and banks instead of letting capatalism do it's thing.Australia on the other hand let companies fail and spent money on national infrustructure projects that created jobs like the national broadband network, insulation for homes to reduce the reliance on heaters and air conditioning, improving schools, fixing up roads which helped the country not go into recession at all, rebates on solar power and tax breaks.This is the kind of thing that can benefit everyone.

On the flipside they understood families were doing it tough so they made incentives for people to improve their education by providing one-off payments and also assisted those who were already on government welfare to look for work.

So a government can do if it's interests are aligned with the peoples, the American government seems to be interested in it's companies.

"Now when you're the 6th child of an inner city black family, you don't get the same opportunities as Mitt did when he was a kid. " ever ask your self why does an inner city black person have so many children and not see that might be a problem? Like they live in the inner city, right? With other poor people with tons of kids that get shot, sell drugs, have many babies, etc. Some how the liberals who say steal from the rich and give to the lazy always miss that talking point. If you want to help those poor people so much, liberal, then tell them to stop spreading their legs and keep their zipper closed. That may be a start.

quote: "Now when you're the 6th child of an inner city black family, you don't get the same opportunities as Mitt did when he was a kid. " ever ask your self why does an inner city black person have so many children and not see that might be a problem?

A kid cannot choose his/her parents, as I'm sure he would not have chosen to be in a family of 6 kids living in poverty. You're just going to say "too bad" and let him die?

I've read a post just like this at least 1000 times. Skip right past the child and straight to the hate on the parent. Would you advocate crushing the baby's skull with your boot to save the cost of a bullet? Real-world problems need real-world answers.

So I want people to just "die", and he wants to crush baby skulls. Is that it?

Either embrace Socialism, or you support death! Great message you guys have there...

You know roughly a third of the country is already being helped with entitlements right? Assuming the other two thirds are employed, do you think it's remotely sustainable or even morally right to have two thirds of the nation working so the other third doesn't have to?

quote: Real-world problems need real-world answers.

Well that's a nice catch phrase that we can all agree with, but what does it mean exactly? Because the current situation is anything but a real answer.